On Giving "Bonus XP" in 3.X

[NichG]

I dislike this tool because there's nothing this tool does that can't be done better and more simply by other tools.

Please do not assume 'because I cannot think of a proper use for this tool, no one should attempt to'. Thats all I'm going to say there.


I use two words when dealing with an encounter, whether it's combat, trap, or something else. Confront and avoid. I would use the word overcome, but that's not accurate. When you confront an encounter, you take part in it. Take for example a patrol of kobolds. To confront them, you will do something that would interact with them. That could be combat. You will be rewarded based on the results of the confrontation. If you do nothing to the patrol, you simply avoided it and it's worth no experience. For a trap if you disable it, you've obviously confronted it. As long as you confront the encounter, you get experience for what was defeated. If you get past the area the trap is guarding without triggering it, you confronted it. Both of these situations warrant XP. However if you find another route that avoids the area guarded by the trap, then you avoided it an no experience is awarded.


In effect, you're using an XP reward to motivate players to do something that could be perilous to their characters or foolhardy (interact with a hazard when you have the ability to avoid it completely) because it makes the game more interesting when people interact with the set than when people ignore it.



I wouldn't award any xp for doing that. That scenario confronts the trap, but it doesn't defeat it.


I was with you up until here. I think this represents a fundamental point which is not the same for everyone in this thread, and that point is 'what is XP for?'

It sounds like (correct me if I'm wrong) you're taking the view that XP is explicitly for rewarding in-character success with growth. I would question why one should necessarily want to make a system that rewards success with growth above and beyond the actual consequences of succeeding. It leads to an instability where the people who are better at things get better faster than the people who are bad at things, so it magnifies existing power discrepancies.

From a game design point of view wouldn't it be better to only reward XP for failure? Or better yet a well-chosen mix of success and failure sort of like the Call of Cthulhu skill increase system (where you have to both succeed at using a skill to attempt to raise it, but to raise it you have to fail that same skill check after the game).

One can also consider XP as a tool to standardize and control pacing when the party is making in-game progress at varying rates per session (which is why often people talk about 'encounters per level' instead of 'sessions per level' or 'xp per level').

One can also consider XP as a way to give players a concrete way to grow their characters. Players tend to have more fun when there are new things/toys/abilities/etc introduced at a certain pace, and XP/leveling provides an influx of these new things in a way where the player can control to some degree what the new things are.

I'm sure there are other interpretations and uses of a broad mechanic like XP as well that I have not mentioned here. You use it as a spotlight tracking system, for example.

[Sarison]

Okay, so, this is actually one of my weird areas of expertise. The idea of "Zero Sum Games" applies to one of two concepts: the points the game uses (score), or the utility of the players (enjoyment).

The point system in question is XP. I think we all agree that in a mathematical sense, giving one person +50 RP-XP does not give another player -50 XP, so it's clearly not zero-sum as far as the points go. You can gain, and you can't lose, so it's either Win/Neutral or Win/Win.

Saying that the person is now "below the group average" and therefor losing out doesn't work. If we generalize that argument, we get silly results: If you practice your driving skills, it "increases the average driving skill" and thus makes me a worse driver. :smallbiggrin: !

You're description of points is a typical one, drawn from a perspective of an absolute Zero. You start with no points and go up from there. I'm advocating for a different model, one where your perspective is taken from an average group total. I think this is supported by my first premise, where CR is taken from the group average.

I admit, I have no evidence to say that your perspective is wrong, but I have to say that it feels wrong: I think that if I generalized it and said "XP is a linear function of damage dealt" then there are no punishments: each player has the option to do damage, you chose your attacks, spells, etc, some people are just more comfortable with it, and as long as my XP goes and doesn't drop, I'm WIN or at least NEUTRAL. Right? Still feels like the wrong perspective.


As for driving, your analysis looks good, by me practicing my driving, you do get worse THEN THE AVERAGE. However, we don't tend to look at the average driver when we drive, and we certainly don't make our roads more dangerous as people get better. However, if we did, you might feel like I was punishing you, driving faster and faster next to you because I was more skilled.

As for utility, I agree with a lot of what you said, but I can't really argue on things without a rational grounding.

[Tyndmyr]

This isn't RPXP, this is anti-RPXP. RPXP would be for The Giant's Paladin rushing through all the traps to set them off so his team aren't injured, getting XP for disabling the traps.

Er, RPXP is for RPing. It is not for defeating encounters. Traps provide xp for defeating them regardless of if you use RPXP.

Not every bit of an adventure need be an encounter!

[NichG]

As for driving, your analysis looks good, by me practicing my driving, you do get worse THEN THE AVERAGE. However, we don't tend to look at the average driver when we drive, and we certainly don't make our roads more dangerous as people get better. However, if we did, you might feel like I was punishing you, driving faster and faster next to you because I was more skilled.


One problem with this analogy is that the level of danger (or alternately, the win-rate of combats) isn't the only consequence or effect of an increase in power level. If the game were just 'you face enemies with a stat equal to the party average; roll d20+stat in opposed rolls, the loser dies' or something like that it might be the case that its effectively zero-sum.

But as you gain levels the players get more character options and also a greater degree of control over the direction that the plot takes, because they have more powers that let them be proactive or choose aspects of the scenario (divination, teleportation, etc), or even just because there are more things that change from absolutely insurmountable walls into things one could consider fighting and winning against.

Even aside from that, the threat of permanent consequences decreases with higher levels due to regeneration/raise dead/resurrection/true resurrection, so even if the rate of character death remains constant, the consequences of character death steadily decrease.

[Talderas]

Please do not assume 'because I cannot think of a proper use for this tool, no one should attempt to'. Thats all I'm going to say there.

I said the tool does nothing that isn't already achieved by other tools. Call it subjective if you want but I see nothing in the tool which cannot be achieved with another tool and only see it requiring the very same tools that have the same effect in order for it to be useful. It is redundant, therefore useless.


In effect, you're using an XP reward to motivate players to do something that could be perilous to their characters or foolhardy (interact with a hazard when you have the ability to avoid it completely) because it makes the game more interesting when people interact with the set than when people ignore it.

I was with you up until here. I think this represents a fundamental point which is not the same for everyone in this thread, and that point is 'what is XP for?'

It sounds like (correct me if I'm wrong) you're taking the view that XP is explicitly for rewarding in-character success with growth. I would question why one should necessarily want to make a system that rewards success with growth above and beyond the actual consequences of succeeding. It leads to an instability where the people who are better at things get better faster than the people who are bad at things, so it magnifies existing power discrepancies.[/quote]


A numerical measure of a character's personal achievement an advancement. Characters earn experiences points by defeating opponents and overcoming challenges.

Avoiding a challenge is not overcoming it. No challenge. No experience points. D&D defines experience as character's personal growth.


From a game design point of view wouldn't it be better to only reward XP for failure? Or better yet a well-chosen mix of success and failure sort of like the Call of Cthulhu skill increase system (where you have to both succeed at using a skill to attempt to raise it, but to raise it you have to fail that same skill check after the game).

You could but that's not how D&D defines experience points. Award experience points for no growth, negative growth, or things that are anti-growth is not what they cover. Awarding experience points for things that are independent of the character, such as how a player behaves, is even further removed from this definition.


One can also consider XP as a tool to standardize and control pacing when the party is making in-game progress at varying rates per session (which is why often people talk about 'encounters per level' instead of 'sessions per level' or 'xp per level').

If you're just awarding level ups after a certain number of encounters, that's fine but the value experience points is thusly a meaningless value.


I'm sure there are other interpretations and uses of a broad mechanic like XP as well that I have not mentioned here. You use it as a spotlight tracking system, for example.

I can use it as a spotlight tracker because I am more flexible with what I consider a challenge yet stringent on the fact that people that do not participate in a challenge do not get experience points for overcoming it. Since I differentiate between types of XP awards, I have the granularity to be able to track this behavior. The players don't even realize this bookkeeping I'm doing behind the scenes.

[Sarison]

But as you gain levels the players get more character options and also a greater degree of control over the direction that the plot takes, because they have more powers that let them be proactive or choose aspects of the scenario (divination, teleportation, etc), or even just because there are more things that change from absolutely insurmountable walls into things one could consider fighting and winning against.

I agree, that there are benefits to leveling other than being able to match stats and expect to win, but by gaining levels above another, you are increasing the chance of running into a wall that you can get over and they can't. Unless this increase in challenges is not derived from level. If the difficulty and type of challenges are built to fit the party, then RP XP is not a punishment. We seem to be in violent agreement, I recognize your conclusions, and you don't seem to refute mine.


Even aside from that, the threat of permanent consequences decreases with higher levels due to regeneration/raise dead/resurrection/true resurrection, so even if the rate of character death remains constant, the consequences of character death steadily decrease.

I doubt that the rate of my death is the same if I'm lower than you but tag along on your quests.


For Zero-sum models to apply, there must be no Pareto superior position. Citation needed.

[Equinox]

A numerical measure of a character's personal achievement an advancement. Characters earn experiences points by defeating opponents and overcoming challenges.

Avoiding a challenge is not overcoming it. No challenge. No experience points. D&D defines experience as character's personal growth.
And yet, it doesn't say "Characters earn experiences points only by defeating opponents and overcoming challenges". I wonder why. It almost seems like the creators of D&D wanted to give DMs some leeway to award discretionary XP :smallcool:

[kaminiwa]

RP XP isn't going to provide anything new that can't already be achieved by feedback.

See, this is patently false.

My group *has* achieved something with RP-XP, and it *wasn't* achieved when we used compliments alone.

[Hecuba]

Citation needed.

There is a sad lack of decent game theory texts online, but thankfully this is definitional.

Zero Sum Game Theory (http://www.math.ucla.edu/~tom/Game_Theory/mat.pdf) section 1.1


For a two-person zero-sum game, the payoff function of Player II is the negative of the payoff of Player I


Which is to say that to total gain must remain zero.

(I apologize that the link is regarding 2-player models, but the general definition holds. I can provide text sources for the the actual definition outside the two player case if you wish, but the only ones I can find online are secondary documents like Wikipedia).

Pareto superiority, inferiority, and optimality, and the Pareto frontier. (http://faculty.washington.edu/wtalbott/phil466/hdpo.htm)

(1) One possible outcome Oi is Pareto superior to another possible outcome Oj just in case at least one member of the group prefers Oi to Oj (i.e., for at least one member of the group, the utility of Oi is greater than the utility of Oj) and no member of the group prefers Oj to Oi (i.e., for no member of the group is the utility of Oj less than the utility of Oi).

Which is to say a move is Pareto superior if it presents a gain for at least party and a loss for no parties. This means a total gain that is positive (and non-zero).

[Segev]

For instance, if Bob, Alice, and Jacob are deciding on a movie to watch together, and Bob and Alice both like romantic comedies and action flicks, but Jacob hates romantic comedies, it is parieto-optimal to choose to go see an action flick.

[Raineh Daze]

And yet, it doesn't say "Characters earn experiences points only by defeating opponents and overcoming challenges". I wonder why. It almost seems like the creators of D&D wanted to give DMs some leeway to award discretionary XP :smallcool:

Could just be yet another editorial oversight on their part, though, and given the general number of word issues in the early books, that is always going to come out as the most likely reason unless evidence for another is supplied. :smallamused:

[NichG]

Avoiding a challenge is not overcoming it. No challenge. No experience points. D&D defines experience as character's personal growth.

You could but that's not how D&D defines experience points. Award experience points for no growth, negative growth, or things that are anti-growth is not what they cover. Awarding experience points for things that are independent of the character, such as how a player behaves, is even further removed from this definition.


A glossary entry isn't a convincing argument here. We've left RAW behind awhile back, when at the start of this thread the question was 'is RPXP good game design' rather than 'does D&D 3.5 support RPXP?'. By RAW, RPXP is part of the rules, as was pointed out awhile back, but that doesn't really matter here. The point of this discussion now is not 'do the rules say you should do X' but 'what are the benefits/drawbacks of doing X' by which we can come to a deeper understanding of how or if RPXP (and necessarily by extension XP) should be used.

Whether or not D&D defines it a certain way, there is the broader question of 'what does this mechanic accomplish?' That question is critical in deciding whether or not to houserule XP to work differently, when changing the way rewards work, etc. In general, if you want to fiddle with the system, you have to understand not just what the system says, but why it says it, and what that means for the game.



I agree, that there are benefits to leveling other than being able to match stats and expect to win, but by gaining levels above another, you are increasing the chance of running into a wall that you can get over and they can't. Unless this increase in challenges is not derived from level. If the difficulty and type of challenges are built to fit the party, then RP XP is not a punishment. We seem to be in violent agreement, I recognize your conclusions, and you don't seem to refute mine.


Where we differ is that I disagree that the success rate versus DM-imposed challenges represents the entirety of the utility function associated with 'playing D&D'. It is part of the equation, and it is the part that can be constructed to be zero-sum, but it isn't the only part.



I doubt that the rate of my death is the same if I'm lower than you but tag along on your quests.


Your death rate personally, no, but if the encounters are being scaled to the party as a whole, then that 'scaling' means 'keeping some measurable outcome constant with respect to party average power'. You may die more often, but the guy who is a level ahead of everyone will die less often, leading to the same party-wide average death rate.

The argument that XP is a zero-sum game depends on us constructing this scaling to force death-rate to be an overall constant with respect to party average power-level.

The thing is, if you take a zero-sum game and add any small deviation that depends absolutely on XP totals, such as more player leeway or more customization options, it is no longer a zero-sum game anymore. Zero plus a little bit isn't zero.

Edit: Here's an example for where you don't even need subjective things to show that D&D isn't zero sum. Lets consider a party with a Cleric, where the party experiences some base-line death rate. If the Cleric does not yet have Raise Dead, it can be advantageous to the party as a whole if the Cleric were to gain enough extra XP to get Raise Dead, even if it meant that the overall death rate went up.

First of all, it increases the chance that the person who survives is the person who can bring everyone else back (because the cleric is above the average CR while the rest of the party is below the average CR). Secondly, the rate of people who stay dead will go sharply down even if the rate of death increases. Because of that synergistic benefit, there is some optimal level gap between the cleric and the rest of the party during the levels before the party would obtain Raise Dead according to their average level. I would guess that this level gap is probably about at most 2 levels worth but I can't compute it - thats just my hunch based on games I've been in.

[Sergeantbrother]

I do something that I am sure lots of people here will find controversial. I give everyone the same amount of experience points. Everybody in the party always has the same amount as everyone else, everybody is always the same level. Also, I award experience for role playing, but everybody gets it, not just the person doing the good role playing.

I find that this encourages role playing, but it also avoiding feelings of jealousy and favoritism. When one player happens to get into a passionate hour long discussion with NPC's about morality, the other players can look on and be happy as that character's role playing earns them XP - instead of missing out on both the limelight and the experience points from it.

[dascarletm]

I do something that I am sure lots of people here will find controversial. I give everyone the same amount of experience points. Everybody in the party always has the same amount as everyone else, everybody is always the same level. Also, I award experience for role playing, but everybody gets it, not just the person doing the good role playing.

I find that this encourages role playing, but it also avoiding feelings of jealousy and favoritism. When one player happens to get into a passionate hour long discussion with NPC's about morality, the other players can look on and be happy as that character's role playing earns them XP - instead of missing out on both the limelight and the experience points from it.

Well, I, for one, am in the same boat as you. I must say most groups outside mine I've been in has seen this as the norm.

[Sarison]

It is part of the equation, and it is the part that can be constructed to be zero-sum, but it isn't the only part. As part of the equation, if all other aspects were held constant, than utility function for those on the losing end of the zero sum RP XP would still diminish. I have a hard time believing that this diminishment of utility isn't a punishment. No matter what the other constants are, unless they are somehow improved by RP XP loss, then your still punishing them.


Pareto superiority, inferiority, and optimality, and the Pareto frontier.
Great definitions, I couldn't find "superiority," but I got the rest of them. While I understand that you could frame the pay outs as only positive, and then find a non-zero sum game, with a player choosing to RP as a Pareto Superior Position, do you not see how framing it as a Zero Sum game, with the Zero mark set at the Average Party XP, would not have Pareto Superior moves? Do you think that this method uses circular logic? Could you explain why one might find it logically inconsistent? And finally, do you have any evidence to suggest that a Absolute Zero Model is the right model to use?


You may die more often, but the guy who is a level ahead of everyone will die less often, leading to the same party-wide average death rate.
You have a brutally efficient logic to you, sir or madam. I like it.

[NichG]

As part of the equation, if all other aspects were held constant, than utility function for those on the losing end of the zero sum RP XP would still diminish. I have a hard time believing that this diminishment of utility isn't a punishment. No matter what the other constants are, unless they are somehow improved by RP XP loss, then your still punishing them.


That would be true if it were zero sum. But it isn't, as I demonstrated. The increase of utility for one player who receives bonus XP does not actually create an effect whose sum is equal and opposite to the other players - there are synergistic effects that prevent this.

I could go into it more but I don't really feel like making more examples that will just be ignored. Please read what I wrote above and if you disagree with my analysis of why it isn't zero sum, lets discuss that.

[Scow2]

Could just be yet another editorial oversight on their part, though, and given the general number of word issues in the early books, that is always going to come out as the most likely reason unless evidence for another is supplied. :smallamused:Does the 3.5 DMG not have the Ad Hock XP reward guidelines and Story XP rewards that the 3.0 DMG (A much superior piece of writing) did?

To me... D&D is a Roleplaying Game. It is a game about playing a role. The better you play the role, the further ahead you get in the game. It is not strictly for introverted escapists.

No, it's not a good idea to use RPXP in a group with rigidly-introverted wallflowers/lurkers (One of those is the proper term, I'm not sure which). On the other hand, games are also great when they help teach and develop life skills - and RPXP can help otherwise-unsocial people develop social skills critical to life that they struggle with, particularly if they are ambitious or have a competitive streak. I've learned the hard way that speaking and writing are skills that need maintenance and development even as an adult.

There's another way to play D&D that really fits with RPXP - Competitive-cooperative. A lot of gamers play games "to win" (And that's even true of Roleplaying Gamers: Check out the stuff CharOp discussion boards like this can churn out!). Earning XP is the 'victory benchmark' in games like D&D - the more you have, the better you're doing. Previous editions of D&D had a "GP for XP" rule, where people earned XP for each GP they earned. It eventually got shed - but the loss of the rule has lead to a dramatic change in how the game was played. With GP-for-XP, combat was a High-Risk-Low-Reward venture (Especially with how nasty the monsters could be). Players were encouraged to have their characters skulk around and steal the loot out from under the monsters' noses instead, earning wealth and levels without exposing themselves to the full horrors of a monster. Most people like rewards first and foremost, and engaging in behavior that gives rewards is perceived as "fun", almost regardless of what that behavior is.

With a Cooperative-competitive approach to the game using RPXP, The players are not just cooperating to tell an interesting story, or try to triumph over what the GM sets up for them, but also trying to out-do each other in the metagame to rack up the most XP. The DM needs to be alert to ensure players are having fun while doing so (Not as hard as it sounds, unless your players are anticompetitive), and ensure that those who are 'falling behind' aren't doing so terribly, and have opportunities to catch up and even surpass other players. However, just because someone is "losing" doesn't mean they're not having fun. Roleplaying is a skill, and it gets better with practice. Competition can improve roleplaying ambition, as it becomes a challenge to overcome... as long as you don't have players turning it from friendly competition to bitter competition.

3.5 has two things that help keep parties within a level of each other - Exponential XP curve, and accelerated XP gain for underleveled players. Furthermore, most of a character's power doesn't come so much from level as much as their wealth, which is unaffected by RPXP - If someone's pulled ahead or fallen behind in level, they still have the Party's average WBL.

RPXP isn't a "Pavlovian Response", though there might be a bit of that. However, giving XP for Roleplaying puts a lot of the "Player Archetypes" - especially the usually-incompatible Psychodramatists and Power gamers - on the same page: The game rules support the Psychodramatic player's desire to explore and express their character's personality without feeling that it's worthless fluff nobody else cares about, and the Power Gamer will put effort into roleplaying and exploring the character he's playing because it leads to more XP and Power. With all that said - it's not something for every group, but it's not without merit, either.

Also - not everyone plays D&D 3.X for the rules: Many play because it's D&D, the Roleplaying game, and still the same game that Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson introduced to the world, though updated. It's very possible to enjoyably play it with standards similar to the previous editions, even though the char-op cieling got blasted into the stratosphere from there.

[Amphetryon]

3.5 has two things that help keep parties within a level of each other - Exponential XP curve, and accelerated XP gain for underleveled players. Furthermore, most of a character's power doesn't come so much from level as much as their wealth, which is unaffected by RPXP - If someone's pulled ahead or fallen behind in level, they still have the Party's average WBL.The first is true, provided that being a level behind doesn't make the Character weak enough to be the one who falls in the tough battle(s) before catching back up (assuming, also, that the RPXP award is smaller than the accelerated XP curve, as noted before), leading to another level loss unless True Resurrection is available (a minority situation in the first 20 levels), or the scrapping of a Character.

The second is true, provided that the DM isn't figuring WBL based on the party's average level (reducing everyone's expected recompense and creating a further burden on the party) and that the group is distributing wealth in a way that's strictly equal.

I'm happy for you if all of the above assumptions have always proven true in your experience. They haven't always proven true in mine.

[MinMax Hardcore]

Listen up, whoever said giving bonus experience to people who
roleplay is not a punishment is wrong. This is coming from a player who have a DM that actually give roleplaying bonus.

While everybody is 2-3lv, I am at lv 4 because of roleplaying experience.

Now before you say"Oh he just giving you too much experience",
I was helping the DM rail road the party, which is why I got the reward.
Because how I play my rogue, I was literally his DM/PC. I help keep the party moving forward and where they need to go.

So I am rewarded for roleplaying and playing style.
This is punishment to the party, because most(if not all of them) are
not experience with roleplaying table top games like me.

[georgie_leech]

At the risk of sounding harsh, that's not being "experienced" at D&D. That's the DM playing favourites and you playing along. The fact that he's made you more powerful via RPXP is not the important thing; he could have just as easily given you more powerful equipment, or fiat-ed you extra abilities, and so on.

[MinMax Hardcore]

At the risk of sounding harsh, that's not being "experienced" at D&D. That's the DM playing favourites and you playing along. The fact that he's made you more powerful via RPXP is not the important thing; he could have just as easily given you more powerful equipment, or fiat-ed you extra abilities, and so on.

That's no different then the DM favoring the roleplaying players
over the non-roleplaying players by giving them exp.

[georgie_leech]

That's no different then the DM favoring the roleplaying players
over the non-roleplaying players by giving them exp.

Most arguing in favour of RPXP do so from the perspective of trying to incentivise RP without causing power imbalance. In your case, it appears a deliberate attempt to make you more powerful than the other players. Again, the issue isn't RPXP; that's just the tool your DM used to make you stronger. The way I (and evidently others) use it is as a group reward, so if anyone doesn't feel like roleplaying, they don't fall behind. In that way, RPXP is not in any way a punishment.

[MinMax Hardcore]

Most arguing in favour of RPXP do so from the perspective of trying to incentivise RP without causing power imbalance. In your case, it appears a deliberate attempt to make you more powerful than the other players. Again, the issue isn't RPXP; that's just the tool your DM used to make you stronger. The way I (and evidently others) use it is as a group reward, so if anyone doesn't feel like roleplaying, they don't fall behind. In that way, RPXP is not in any way a punishment.

RPXP and XP are tools used by DMs to make players stronger. Your point is?

RPXP is a punishment, because it punish those who do not roleplay.
You guys think a little exp here and there won't matter, but
eventually they will add up and the non-roleplayers will fall behind.
To catch up, they have to roleplay which is something they may not want.

Forcing somebody to roleplay is just like forcing somebody to
kill monsters for bonus XP. (which the current DM also do this)

[georgie_leech]

RPXP and XP are tools used by DMs to make players stronger. Your point is?

RPXP is a punishment, because it punish those who do not roleplay.
You guys think a little exp here and there won't matter, but
eventually they will add up and the non-roleplayers will fall behind.
To catch up, they have to roleplay which is something they may not want.

Forcing somebody to roleplay is just like forcing somebody to
kill monsters for bonus XP. (which the current DM also do this)

You must have missed the part where I said everyone gets RPXP. When Bob chooses to charge recklessly through the traps because they captured his little sister, it isn't just Bob, but Alice and John who get the bonus. How is that in any way a punishment?

[MinMax Hardcore]

You must have missed the part where I said everyone gets RPXP. When Bob chooses to charge recklessly through the traps because they captured his little sister, it isn't just Bob, but Alice and John who get the bonus. How is that in any way a punishment?

I totally miss the part where everybody get RPXP.

If the experience works like that where everybody get XP bonus
because a single guy's action or roleplaying, D&D would be in a better place, because sharing is caring.

But then again when I DM, I don't use experience. :smallbiggrin:
Who want to keep track of all those XP? Not me.

[Scow2]

That's no different then the DM favoring the roleplaying players over the non-roleplaying players by giving them exp.
The flaw in this argument is that there is a divide between "Role-Playing" and "Non-Roleplaying" players. You're playing a game where Roleplaying is the central mechanic - The d20 is NOT the core mechanic - it is merely an impartial tool to resolve situations with ambiguous outcomes.

Roleplaying XP doesn't only engage Roleplayers, though it does encourage them. (A problem I've seen with groups is roleplayers "throttling back" their behavior to put the focus on the dice, not the roleplay, out of fear of hogging the spotlight or boring others). It also engages the Gamers into the roleplaying mechanic, by giving them a goal and an alternate path to 'victory' that can't be ignored. When Munchkinrey results in the most believable, nuanced, and consistent characters in a party, something's gone right... or horribly wrong.

One of the jobs of the DM is to decide the game they want to play. He is entirely authorized to run a game where "Not Wanting to Roleplay" in D&D is like "Not wanting to capture the opponent's king" in Chess.

[Talya]

Once again, "Roleplay rewards" are fine, but the whole party gets them. You got one guy who keeps everyone playing in stitches with his in character antics, reward him -- by rewarding everyone. You're a team. The same goes for anything else dramaticly appropriate, or just damn cool.

[MinMax Hardcore]

The flaw in this argument is that there is a divide between "Role-Playing" and "Non-Roleplaying" players. You're playing a game where Roleplaying is the central mechanic

Please define roleplaying and how it is a central mechanic.
My roleplaying could be a party with no background kicking in
the door and killing everything in the dungeon. That's enough roleplaying for me.

As far as I know, bonus XP punish players who don't roleplay
properly enough for the DM and are force to roleplay to his
standards or be left behind in XP. Does this sounds like punishment to you? If not, please explain.

Bonus XP for roleplaying is as punishing as giving Bonus XP for
killing monsters. A certain group of players will be hurt.
Players will be punish for not building characters that can kill,
therefor get left behind by players who specialize in killing things.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

I play primarily in a group where leveling is entirely ad-hoc at the DM's discretion. It's very liberating.

[Lorsa]

Skipping a lot of pages I just wanted to say that I find good roleplaying to be it's own reward. I have been in groups that give out more xp for good roleplaying and I have seen it done right and I have seen it playing favorites. Personally I like to give the same amount of experience to all my players, I've found it creates less bad feelings (people aren't perfect). So if I were to have roleplaying awards it would be to everyone equally.

[Scow2]

Please define roleplaying and how it is a central mechanic.
My roleplaying could be a party with no background kicking in
the door and killing everything in the dungeon. That's enough roleplaying for me.Most people consider "Roleplaying" to be creating and portraying a believable character that exists in a consistent world, not mere 'pawn play.'


As far as I know, bonus XP punish players who don't roleplay
properly enough for the DM and are force to roleplay to his
standards or be left behind in XP. Does this sounds like punishment to you? If not, please explain. Well, "As far as you know" is very, very small, and not how it works out in practice. The DM is the one who determines the game (Unless he's being paid to run one), and even if it is a "punishment", it's not an undeserved one. Mediocrity doesn't deserve rewards. If someone doesn't put forth any effort to contribute to the game the party wants to run, he shouldn't have the same reward as those who do put forth the extra effort to 'bring the game to life'.


Bonus XP for roleplaying is as punishing as giving Bonus XP for
killing monsters. A certain group of players will be hurt.
Players will be punish for not building characters that can kill,
therefor get left behind by players who specialize in killing things.It's easier to assemble a group without the kind of person adverse to the group's idea of Roleplaying than a party without noncombat or support characters. Bonus XP for killing monsters can also be balanced with bonus XP for other roles that need to be filled, so that those who are best at their jobs are rewarded.

The biggest problem with D&D's size is that people have come to the conclusion that every table must cater to every playstyle. If you show up at a table that uses RPXP and try to play like a Hivemind of Greatswords From Nowhere, you're going to be disappointed. Competitive XP reward systems such as RPXP intuitively keep the players engaging in the table's desired playstyle without having to resort to excessive OOC begging and from the GM and other players. People like rewards and advancement (See: Every game implementing RPG-style advancement systems)... I've seen a lot of previously-strong roleplayers just give in and resort to simple pawn-play because time spent fleshing out characters and exploring the intricities of the world and plots could be more rewardingly spent tunnel-visioning on solving problems presented in the fastest, most efficient, and frequently blandest methods available.

[MinMax Hardcore]

The DM is the one who determines the game (Unless he's being paid to run one), and even if it is a "punishment", it's not an undeserved one. Mediocrity doesn't deserve rewards. If someone doesn't put forth any effort to contribute to the game the party wants to run, he shouldn't have the same reward as those who do put forth the extra effort to 'bring the game to life'.

Punishment at it's finest. Taking penalty for not roleplaying properly.

Ladies and gentlement, I here by win this thread by declaring
XP Bonus for roleplaying is punishment.

Not everybody want to roleplay. Some people want to kill stuff,
some people just want to watch the story unfold, and some people are too shy to roleplay. Why do these people have to be force
to contribute in your story or suffer XP losses?

[NichG]

Punishment at it's finest. Taking penalty for not roleplaying properly.

Ladies and gentlement, I here by win this thread by declaring
XP Bonus for roleplaying is punishment.

Not everybody want to roleplay. Some people want to kill stuff,
some people just want to watch the story unfold, and some people are too shy to roleplay. Why do these people have to be force
to contribute in your story or suffer XP losses?

Well you could just not try to play at tables that do things you hate so much you aren't even willing to meet people half way on them. If you feel 'participating' is 'being punished' then why are you still at that table?

[MinMax Hardcore]

Well you could just not try to play at tables that do things you hate so much you aren't even willing to meet people half way on them. If you feel 'participating' is 'being punished' then why are you still at that table?

You asking a guy who currently playing in a campaign where you get XP for using skill, class features, killing monsters, and etc. Although I favor sharing exp, this is pretty much how the group is run. You start at lv 1 and get XP for doing stuff.

I am only trying to define why giving roleplaying XP is punishment. Why the person is still playing with that group or DM is irrelevant on the topic of this thread.

I'll give another example.

2 people call me Mr.Min Max Hardcore. I give them 300 XP for that.
1 person call me Sir.Min Max Hardcore. That person get 0 XP.
That person is punish for not calling me Mr.Min Max Hardcore.

The Bonus XP system also follow the example system.
Don't roleplay your character, get punish. Simple.

[Talya]

Mechanical stuff is just an enabler for roleplaying, it isn't roleplaying itself. A miniatures hack-and-slash tactical combat game may be fun. There's nothing wrong with it, at all. But it's not an RPG.

That said, as I said before, it's a team game. There's no room for individual experience rewards. What you give to one person, you give to the whole party.

[NichG]

You asking a guy who currently playing in a campaign where you get XP for using skill, class features, killing monsters, and etc. Although I favor sharing exp, this is pretty much how the group is run. You start at lv 1 and get XP for doing stuff.

I am only trying to define why giving roleplaying XP is punishment. Why the person is still playing with that group or DM is irrelevant on the topic of this thread.


Its not irrelevant to this thread, its just irrelevant to the argument you want to have. But under your definition of punishment, which is so broad as to include 'any time you don't receive the maximum possible outcome', the punishment argument kind of becomes meaningless. I'm not going to argue with you over what terms you choose to use to refer to something, because you've shown you clearly understand that differential rewards can be part of the game and that doesn't bother you - the continued use of the term 'punishment' is just trying to associate a negative emotional stigma to the idea, which is (outside of the connected vocabulary) pretty neutral.

I'm going to use the term 'differential results' for that reason, because it says basically what it is without attaching a particular emotion to it, positive or negative.

What I am going to argue is that not all play styles belong at all tables. You've already shown you agree that 'failing to fight the monsters' in a game about fighting the monsters is bad form. My argument is, even if your particular table/gameplay style doesn't have roleplaying as a core mechanic, that isn't going to be true for all tables.

If you agree that there can be differential results for failing to play to one particular game mechanic that has been established to be important at a given table (fighting the monsters), then you also have to at least understand why it can make sense to apply differential results to some other behavior in a game that is angled to be about that behavior instead of/in addition to killing monsters.

[Amphetryon]

Mechanical stuff is just an enabler for roleplaying, it isn't roleplaying itself. A miniatures hack-and-slash tactical combat game may be fun. There's nothing wrong with it, at all. But it's not an RPG.

That said, as I said before, it's a team game. There's no room for individual experience rewards. What you give to one person, you give to the whole party.
So, just to clarify, you disagree with Serpentine's* stated position on the subject, that those who roleplay best^ should be the ones to receive a bonus, which got this discussion rolling way back on the previous thread?



*Others have chimed in with apparent agreement since then; I'm not marginalizing them. I'm just too lazy to look up and credit all of them.

^If "best" has been defined conclusively other than "how the DM likes it" in this or the previous thread, I missed it.

[Hecuba]

Great definitions, I couldn't find "superiority," but I got the rest of them. While I understand that you could frame the pay outs as only positive, and then find a non-zero sum game, with a player choosing to RP as a Pareto Superior Position, do you not see how framing it as a Zero Sum game, with the Zero mark set at the Average Party XP, would not have Pareto Superior moves? Do you think that this method uses circular logic? Could you explain why one might find it logically inconsistent? And finally, do you have any evidence to suggest that a Absolute Zero Model is the right model to use?

A Zero Sum model would need to presume that any positive payoff would come at the cost of an equal negative payoff. For such a model to hold in this case, you would need to assume that any RPXP benefit given to a player was met with an equal loss distributed along the other players.

Such a model prohibits us from using XP as a sole benchmark anymore-- and if we use XP at all and want a negative return, we would need to set the new 0 at the highest XP level, with the other players having negative returns.
Even then, we would have to bend credulity to create a model that considers the XP difference as a zero-sum (specifically, fractional utility for XP below "zero", non-fractional utility at or above).

Even then, if there is a way for multiple people to gain the bonus XP, we have exited Zero Sum territory.

This is a pretty good indication that XP itself is not zero sum.

A more sensible way to model it would be to presume the the following.

The utility of XP is always positive to the player receiving it.
Some people take strong disutility from participating in roleplaying
Some people take strong disutility from unequal XP awards.


If the disutility comes from participating in roleplaying, then it would seem that it would hold even if another incentive (in game or otherwise, rules based or otherwise) to participate in roleplaying was used. The underlying objection isn't to the XP, but to the goal that it is being used to pursue. (Or, potentially, the blatant use of incentives to try to influence your behavior. For this case, the outcome is the same-- another incentive would have the same effect.) The issue here is not the system used to create the incentive, but rather that your group/DM actively wants incentive roleplaying and you actively do not. It is a question of goals, not tools.

If the disutility comes from unequal XP awards, then RPXP is merely a symptom (though likely the most visible one) of a problem with individual XP awards in general. If you're going to move everything else to group awards (which I think is great, if only for bookkeeping), there is no reason not to do the same for for RPXP. As point of fact, many people have already noted such modifications in the thread.

[Scow2]

Punishment at it's finest. Taking penalty for not roleplaying properly.

Ladies and gentlement, I here by win this thread by declaring
XP Bonus for roleplaying is punishment.

Not everybody want to roleplay. Some people want to kill stuff,
some people just want to watch the story unfold, and some people are too shy to roleplay. Why do these people have to be force
to contribute in your story or suffer XP losses?You lose the thread, because you have no idea what the concept of Bonus or Incentive are. Not everyone likes friendly competition, but a lot of people do.

People who want to kill stuff don't suffer XP penalties if they play a Blood Knight character, and can even get XP when their desire to kill someone is overruled by the party (As long as he's not disruptive about it). People who want to watch the story unfold need to contribute for there to be a story to unfold, and could take that OOC desire IC and play something like a bard, explorer, or archivist archetype (Even if not those actual classes) to still get in on the bonus RPXP. Those too shy to RP can hopefully be coaxed out of that with the promise of Shiny XP points.

However, if any of those playstyles are among the 'core' group of players (Those the game is originally hosted for, such as friends), then competitive RPXP is best not to be used. But, if the players prefer the more competitive aspect to creating a more enjoyable RP experience and aren't unwilling to compromise, competitive RPXP can be a potent factor in making the game more focused and enjoyable.



So, just to clarify, you disagree with Serpentine's* stated position on the subject, that those who roleplay best^ should be the ones to receive a bonus, which got this discussion rolling way back on the previous thread?


*Others have chimed in with apparent agreement since then; I'm not marginalizing them. I'm just too lazy to look up and credit all of them.

^If "best" has been defined conclusively other than "how the DM likes it" in this or the previous thread, I missed it.There are two approaches to RPXP - one is cooperative, where everyone gets bonus XP for someone playing well. The other is competitive, where XP is delivered on a personal basis, and used as an incentive to go above and beyond expectations at the table.

The DM is the final arbiter of RP quality - but he's also the one running the game. A bad DM is a bad DM. A good one, however, is more open-minded and circumspect on what constitutes good roleplaying, and can take cues from the enthusiasm of others.



Experience awards are supposed to help indicate the style of play you want, whether it's RPXP to encourage storytelling and deep characterization (Instead of mere pawns), or the great GP-for-XP rule from prior editions (Which got ignorantly dumped because people didn't understand it), to encourage conservative play and cunning acquisition of wealth over the mindless monster-bashing the game devolved into. DM's wouldn't feel compelled to stay within a narrow band of "Level Appropriate" encounters if fighting wasn't the only or even primary means of advancement.

[Amphetryon]

There are two approaches to RPXP - one is cooperative, where everyone gets bonus XP for someone playing well. The other is competitive, where XP is delivered on a personal basis, and used as an incentive to go above and beyond expectations at the table.

The DM is the final arbiter of RP quality - but he's also the one running the game. A bad DM is a bad DM. A good one, however, is more open-minded and circumspect on what constitutes good roleplaying, and can take cues from the enthusiasm of others.



Experience awards are supposed to help indicate the style of play you want, whether it's RPXP to encourage storytelling and deep characterization (Instead of mere pawns), or the great GP-for-XP rule from prior editions (Which got ignorantly dumped because people didn't understand it), to encourage conservative play and cunning acquisition of wealth over the mindless monster-bashing the game devolved into. DM's wouldn't feel compelled to stay within a narrow band of "Level Appropriate" encounters if fighting wasn't the only or even primary means of advancement.And the entire impetus for starting this thread was disagreement in its progenitor over whether awarding individual RPXP in a non-uniform fashion was punitive to certain Players, or had a generally (as opposed to niche case) positive or negative impact on the Players and the game.

I'm really not seeing the connective thread you're tying between the post you quoted, and your response. Please clarify.

[IronFist]

You asking a guy who currently playing in a campaign where you get XP for using skill, class features, killing monsters, and etc. Although I favor sharing exp, this is pretty much how the group is run. You start at lv 1 and get XP for doing stuff.

I am only trying to define why giving roleplaying XP is punishment. Why the person is still playing with that group or DM is irrelevant on the topic of this thread.

I'll give another example.

2 people call me Mr.Min Max Hardcore. I give them 300 XP for that.
1 person call me Sir.Min Max Hardcore. That person get 0 XP.
That person is punish for not calling me Mr.Min Max Hardcore.

The Bonus XP system also follow the example system.
Don't roleplay your character, get punish. Simple.
English is not your first language, is it?

[The Trickster]

I do something that I am sure lots of people here will find controversial. I give everyone the same amount of experience points. Everybody in the party always has the same amount as everyone else, everybody is always the same level. Also, I award experience for role playing, but everybody gets it, not just the person doing the good role playing.

I find that this encourages role playing, but it also avoiding feelings of jealousy and favoritism. When one player happens to get into a passionate hour long discussion with NPC's about morality, the other players can look on and be happy as that character's role playing earns them XP - instead of missing out on both the limelight and the experience points from it.

I wouldn't say controversial, because it is a good idea. My group does the same thing. I mean, sure, you can roleplay with NPC's and such, that can be fun. Yo be honest though, I believe the best RP is between party mates anyway. Roleplay with each other; Everyone gets XP, no one falls behind or feels like they are being shafted, no potential complaints about someone being a favorite of the DM, etc.

[Scow2]

And the entire impetus for starting this thread was disagreement in its progenitor over whether awarding individual RPXP in a non-uniform fashion was punitive to certain Players, or had a generally (as opposed to niche case) positive or negative impact on the Players and the game.

I'm really not seeing the connective thread you're tying between the post you quoted, and your response. Please clarify.From what I gathered, the impetus isn'tsimply that awarding individual RPXP in a non-uniform fashion was punitive to players, but that it was a stupidwrongbad rule. Yes, it relatively 'punishes' some players: Namely, those that don't play in the style requested by the table's campaign. Furthermore, it does so in a manner that communicates the style of the campaign without needing to stop the game to explain it, or pull players aside to try to clarify it and hope they go along with it - players are shown what they should be doing.

I perceive incentive, such as XP rewards, as a 'carrot' to get players to properly 'behave' in line with a campaign. OOC discussion telling a player he needs to "Get in line" (No matter how nicely its phrased) is a stick. If a GM pulls you aside to talk to you after a game to discuss a problem, it's usually because you screwed up somewhere.

Another benefit of RPXP, competitive or not, is that it encourages players to optimize toward a character instead of optimize toward combat-solving (Or 'challenge overcoming'), since Combat-solving is no longer the (only) way to 'win' at the game. (And if you're arguing that Getting XP isn't "Winning at D&D", then the earlier argument that people who are falling behind in XP are "losing the game" is likewise invalidated).

[Segev]

If RPXP is a "punishment," then rewarding treasure is also a punishment. Especially if rewarded in any form other than pure GP to spend as they wish at the magic-mart. Because if it takes any other form, some players are rewarded with better-suited loot and others get less because they have to sell their shares.

Heck, you are "punishing" players for not participating in combat by not giving them XP for an encounter. Even if those other players were engaged in an RP scene cotemporaneously that earned them the same exp in RPXP.

But, you see, you've punished all of the players, rather than rewarding all of them.

This whole line of thought is poisonously entitled.

"This person went above and beyond, and is getting a bonus perk for it. That's punishing everybody who didn't do as much!"

That same logic means that giving somebody overtime pay because he worked 90 hours one week is punishing everybody who only worked 40 hours.

[Talya]

So, just to clarify, you disagree with Serpentine's* stated position on the subject, that those who roleplay best^ should be the ones to receive a bonus, which got this discussion rolling way back on the previous thread?



*Others have chimed in with apparent agreement since then; I'm not marginalizing them. I'm just too lazy to look up and credit all of them.

^If "best" has been defined conclusively other than "how the DM likes it" in this or the previous thread, I missed it.

I'm not inclined to give bonus XP to individual players in a game like D&D. It's not designed for it. And honestly, it doesn't really do anything. The mechanic of the game ensures that nobody can really get ahead or fall behind in a party. In a system like Exalted? Well, it's rather designed with individual XP rewards in mind.

I had a DM that would hand out fiat 200xp in mid session - to the entire party - for one person's great roleplay. Trust me, that encouraged roleplay just as much as handing it out individually, which just encourages people to hog the limelight.

[Scow2]

I'm not inclined to give bonus XP to individual players in a game like D&D. It's not designed for it. And honestly, it doesn't really do anything. The mechanic of the game ensures that nobody can really get ahead or fall behind in a party. In a system like Exalted? Well, it's rather designed with individual XP rewards in mind.Actually, if you believe that the game can't handle individual players getting ahead or behind, that's a problem with your perception, not the game itself. D&D can handle mixed-level parties very well - it's why it uses discrete XP in the first place. Unfortunately, a lot of players carry an overdeveloped sense of entitlement.

[MinMax Hardcore]

That same logic means that giving somebody overtime pay because he worked 90 hours one week is punishing everybody who only worked 40 hours.

Where I work, this is indeed punishment. This guy got 115 hours
worth of pay compare to other workers. Where I work, managers only got certain number of hours to work with and they spent it all on this guy. They could easily hire new workers, but put everything on this guy.
If this guy calls in work, the whole team is gonna suffer badly.

[Scow2]

Where I work, this is indeed punishment. This guy got 115 hours
worth of pay compare to other workers. Where I work, managers only got certain number of hours to work with and they spent it all on this guy. They could easily hire new workers, but put everything on this guy.
If this guy calls in work, the whole team is gonna suffer badly.When a manager chooses to give a guy overtime, it usually is because he's the only/best one for the job that needs to be done. Hiring more workers costs more, because new-hires require training and give poor performance-for-time for the first few weeks or months. If a manager gives Overtime to an employee over another existing employee, it's because the former employee is more reliable and/or has a more accomodating schedule for the job that needs to be done.

[Amphetryon]

Actually, if you believe that the game can't handle individual players getting ahead or behind, that's a problem with your perception, not the game itself. D&D can handle mixed-level parties very well - it's why it uses discrete XP in the first place. Unfortunately, a lot of players carry an overdeveloped sense of entitlement.

The problem does not, necessarily, lay where you're saying it does, unless you have actual proof that your perception is the One True Way and everyone who disagrees is actually having WrongBadFun.

[Scow2]

The problem does not, necessarily, lay where you're saying it does, unless you have actual proof that your perception is the One True Way and everyone who disagrees is actually having WrongBadFun. I'm not the one arguing for One True Way. I'm saying D&D 3.X can handle mixed-level parties just as well as same-level parties.

[amalcon]

There are three cases where I think RP experience is actively a good thing:
1) When new players are in a group, RP bonus experience can help to emphasize that aspect of the game. The rules in the Players' Handbook are so overwhelmingly focused on combat that often new players think it's the important part of the game. The alternatives to demonstrate otherwise are either to force the new player into RP situations, or to gently nudge them that way with something like RP bonus experience.

2) When a player sacrifices something for RP reasons, RP bonus experience can help to mitigate that sacrifice. Like it or not, if you're not roleplaying a genius sociopath, roleplaying at least occasionally means making suboptimal choices. For example, a character may refuse his portion of the reward for a particular mission for one reason or another -- maybe the employer needs the money, maybe the character just can't stand the employer, whatever it may be. Modest RP experience may be awarded as a way of offsetting that sort of thing. This acts to reduce party imbalance, not increase it. It also helps mitigate the game's existing encouragement to play genius sociopaths.

3) When the group enjoys it. My groups generally don't use roleplaying experience, because we generally don't use experience points at all. We see it as a bookkeeping headache that can cause power disparities on the side. While we generally enjoy the RP experience dynamic, we feel that it improves the game even more to do away with experience entirely. I don't think everyone should play this way, though. If another group feels that roleplaying experience enhances things more than plot-speed leveling, who am I to argue?

There is really only one case where I think it's an actively bad thing: where the group does not enjoy it. It's the badwrongfun issue again: if a group doesn't enjoy something, it's senseless to complain on the internet that they don't use it.

The only difficult part, then, is what to do if a group is split on the question of whether or not they enjoy it. Even then, the answer is pretty simple: do the same thing as for every other metagame question. If some people in the group want to play 3.5, some want to play Pathfinder, and one guy wants to play Vampire, what do you do? You talk about it out of game, and come to an agreement on what makes people happiest -- maybe you play an intrigue game in 3.5, but port some of the better things over from Pathfinder. Maybe everyone's more or less OK with 3.5 so you play that. Maybe the one guy willing to GM is also the one guy who wanted to play Vampire, because he doesn't know d20 and doesn't have time to learn it well enough to GM. Maybe the whole thing is irreconcilable and you end up playing separate games.

Likewise with roleplaying XP. Maybe one person really hates it, and the rest of the group have a mild preference for it, so they should bend. Maybe one person hates it, but the rest of the group hate playing without it, and the one person should bend. Maybe everyone's preferences are satisfied by divinding roleplaying XP evenly. Maybe roleplaying XP should only be awarded to offset costs incurred as a result of roleplaying.

It's not as though we don't already deal with this sort of issue. Just talk about it. Nobody needs to bend to anyone else's will. We are intelligent creatures; we have ways of solving minor disagreements like this without needing an ironclad rule.

[Talya]

Actually, if you believe that the game can't handle individual players getting ahead or behind, that's a problem with your perception, not the game itself. D&D can handle mixed-level parties very well - it's why it uses discrete XP in the first place. Unfortunately, a lot of players carry an overdeveloped sense of entitlement.

I never said the game can't handle it... the game handles it just fine. It handles it by equalizing the experience everyone has, by RAW, in the very mechanics of handing out experience. You cannot get significantly far ahead or behind anyone else, because if you're ahead, you're getting significantly less experience than everyone else, and if you're behind, you're getting significantly more experience than everyone else. This prevents wide level spreads. Which makes individual xp rewards meaningless. You're giving away imaginary bonus xp...it doesn't change anybody's relative level in the long term.

This is also why pathfinder completely did away with individual xp rewards, as well as experience loss or spending in any way. 3.5 makes it exceedingly complicated with no real effect.